Letters to the Editor, Aug. 10

A bobcat caught in a leghold trap, a device banned by more than 80 countries but still legal in most states in the U.S. They are commonly used by USDA Wildlife Services.

A bobcat caught in a leghold trap, a device banned by more than 80...

Spare our native cat! Why would the California Fish and Games Commission staff have recommended a “partial” ban on killing California bobcats and selling their pelts? These animals clearly serve a purpose in the ecological scheme of things and they belong to all the people of California and our future generations. Doesn’t the State Commission have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect these animals? The practice of setting traps and selling the furs for personal profit needs to be banned statewide immediately.

Although I am greatly gratified by the outpouring of national moral outrage over the senseless killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe and the accompanying concern for the survival of his many cubs, I can’t help but also consider the similar plight of millions of wild and domestic animals just in this country that suffer the same fate.Think of the dairy cows having their newborns taken from them, then repeatedly forcibly impregnated and sent to slaughter years before their natural lives should end; think of the wolves, foxes and coyotes killed to protect domestic livestock just so that we can indulge our unexamined culinary desires for pigs, beef, lamb or chickens.

All of these animals have families just like Cecil, all are innocent just like Cecil, and all want nothing more than to live out their lives free from suffering. Are we so unlike the dentist who killed Cecil?

Does he really believe that anyone who mentions his faith should be disqualified from holding public office? What a bigoted view that is, directly contradictory to both the words and the spirit of the First Amendment.

In fact, Walker’s statement, which only came in reply to a question about God, is exactly what the founders wanted to protect. It’s still shocking to see how far removed from our founding values many Americans have become.

Cary Fulbright, San Francisco

Entertaining GOP

The Republican debate had all the seriousness of World Wrestling Entertainment meets the Hunger Games meets the Superbowl with its star attraction a reality TV billionaire. What were Fox and the GOP thinking when they staged the event in a sports stadium with a whooped up crowd? Was Facebook supposed to add journalistic credibility? In their view, politics is now just entertainment. While all eyes were on Donald Trump, what about the serious candidates?

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was painfully awkward and wooden, utterly unconvincing. Sen. Rand Paul looked like he showed up at the 21 Club sans tie and jacket. N.J. Gov. Chris Christie needed a hair stylist. With the exception of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who came across as reasonably centrist and pragmatic, the rest of the pack resorted to the usual right wing extremist talking points, taking a flame thrower to government in general, diplomacy, Planned Parenthood, immigrants, the unemployed, climate scientists and gays to name a few. But that’s what it takes to win in today’s GOP primary.

John Brooks, Fairfax

Up in smoke

Regarding “Pot’s hit on our water supply” (Insight, Aug. 2): While illegal pot growers are no doubt a problem in a few remote watersheds, it’s ludicrous to scapegoat them for California’s drought. Marijuana can be reasonably estimated to use at most 15,000 acre-feet of water in California, a literal drop in the bucket compared to the 35,000,000 water-feet spent yearly on agriculture. A single medical marijuana joint uses just one-half gallon of water, compared to 15 gallons or more for one glass of wine. If Californians want to save water, they should put away the bottle and light up a joint.

Dale Gieringer, San Francisco

Supervise project

Regarding “A way to build roads on time and budget” (Open Forum, Aug. 6): Speaking as someone who has resided in several states, I am constantly concerned by the number of issues that in California end up in costly courtroom sagas. The Chronicle’s coverage of the Doyle Drive project provides a perfect example with the courts involvement added cost and delays. Why should the courts be involved in determining how a project should be handled? Is this really how democracy is supposed to function with law courts making decisions rather than elected officials? It seems to me that there are many cases that courts should simply refuse to take on and refer them back to our civil authorities. It is well known that the private sector working under the supervision of government is the most cost effective way to conduct infrastructure projects. If leaving things in the hands of government alone was a good model, the Soviet Union would still be around and thriving.

John Moore, Petaluma

Waste management

San Francisco’s zero waste goal is admirable and ambitious. When announced, it affirmed my belief that our elected officials share the voters views on the environment and the impact all of us have on it. However, after reading “No good reason to trash contract” (Editorial, Aug. 6), I feel that we are taking a step back in terms of reaching that goal. How can we reach our goal of sending zero discards to landfills when our elected officials award trash disposal contracts to companies whose plan is to increase the amount of trucks carrying trash to those landfills?

And how are we the citizens supposed to trust that this deal will in fact help us reach our zero-waste goal when the environment department and planning commission dont conduct an environmental impact report? I think the public is owed the ability to come to our own conclusions about how city deals will impact our environment and the zero-waste goal.

Sonia Ramos, San Francisco

Faulty politics

I was surprised that Sen. Rand Paul, a politician, admitted how our political system works: “He’s already hedging his bets because he’s used to buying politicians.” The fault lies with the politician, not the buyer.